Ethics - Forum prava

Go to content

Main menu:

Publishing Ethics
The Editorial Board of the "Forum Prava" journal strictly follows guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics and is guided by the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. We have taken steps to provide high ethical and professional standards based on the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

1. Principles of professional ethics in the work of the editor and publisher
1.1. In its activity, the editor is responsible for the publication of copyright works, which imposes the need to pass the following fundamental principles:
– an editor should make decisions on which articles to publish based on representational faithfulness and scholarly importance of the proposed work.
– an editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, social set-up or political philosophy of the authors;
– unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage;
– an editor should be alert to intellectual property issues and must not to publish information if there are reasons to think that it is plagiarism;
– an editor, in conjunction with the publisher, should not unresponsive claims related to the manuscripts under consideration or published materials, as well as in the event of a conflict situation, to take all necessary measures to restore the infringed rights.

2. Ethical principles in the reviewer work
2.1. Reviewer carries out a scientific examination of the author's materials, introducing his duties, which should be of a prior nature with the following principles:
– any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor;
– reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments;
– unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage;
– any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
2.2. Rules of the review procedure
2.2.1. The review of scientific articles involves internal and external (non-members of the editorial board or Scientific Council of the journal) reviewers.
2.2.2. For each scientific article, at least two independent reviewers are appointed (a person not part of a scientific unit that is affiliated with the author of a scientific publication).
2.2.3. The reviewers are required to sign the statement on the absence of a conflict of interest (the conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author occurs in their family or professional relations or in professional cooperation for two years before the preparation of the review).
2.2.4. The reviewer prepares a written report with a conclusion on the possibility of denouncing a scientific article before publication.
2.2.5. The journal's website publishes publicly: the list of reviewers, the proposed forms of review (questionnaires, the publication of reviewers when registering an article), qualification criteria, or refusal to publish scientific articles for the selection of articles for publication).
2.2.6. The names of reviewers of individual issues of the magazine are not disclosed.
2.2.7. The double-blind review is practiced. Information about authors and reviewers is not distributed to the parties during the review.

3. Principles that should guide the author of scientific publications
3.1. Authors are aware that they bear primary responsibility for the new and reliable results of scientific research, which implies observance of such principles:
– an author should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the author has used the work and/or words of others, then this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable;
– it is necessary to recognize the contribution of all persons who have influenced the course of the research, in particular, references should be given in the article to the works that were important during the research;
– authors should not submit to the magazine a manuscript that was sent to another magazine and is under consideration, as well as an article already published in another journal;
– all those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication;
– when an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor.
 
Back to content | Back to main menu